How to properly balance CVs

[lankylad11_lankylad]

 

What would be the problem? People go all TB at start and find an enemy that brought fighters - the TBs burn. People went all fighters at start and the enemy went all fighters too - both battle it out, and then send the TBs or DBs. It will be much more dynamic. Combine it with limited flight time, and you've got a more realistic and more thoughtful game.

 

can you imagine 2 fighter 3 TB Midway, Battleships would cry heavnes, I could one shot a Yamato if you gave me that loadout in a midway.  imagine what BB captains would say then.  no it just wouldn't work

[lankylad11_lankylad]

Tier 8 was perfectly balanced in CVs, at tier 7 2-2-2 roflstomped over anything the Ranger had.  So WG moved the problems of tier 7 into tier 8 then ruined 9 and 10.  brilliant.  I mean ruined, destroyed.  Essex and Midway do not shine in any one area any more.  the only good US CV is Langley.  Indi is ok but that's it the rest.  nope IJN win hands down.  I have argued for 9 months that US CV loadouts need reworking

[Ubertron_X]

 

And what's the point in owning the skies?

 

Where's the fun in fighter vs fighter combat in this game?

 

None that's what.

 

The point of owning the skies is that you can do what you want AFTER you have done that first. And where is the fun in getting the s**t bombed out of you as a non CV ship? None that's what.

 

The thing is that WG needs to decide on the roles of CV's and balance around that. If their role is a damage dealer first and foremost then CV's need to be balanced around damage. If their role is a guardian/scout than CV's need to be balanced around how well they can do this (aka killing planes and keeping DD spotted). So if you are in for direct contribution go strike. If you are in for indirect contribution (aka your team needs to make use of you safeguarding them) then use AS.

 

The problem with the later is (apart from possibly ruining a strike CV game), that it is currently not rewarded properly. And that in a game which is supposed to be a team game.

 

So I just wanted to add to the topic that instead of removing the AS decks they could alternatively strengthen them in order to make sense (currently they don't).

[th3freakie]

 

can you imagine 2 fighter 3 TB Midway, Battleships would cry heavnes, I could one shot a Yamato if you gave me that loadout in a midway.  imagine what BB captains would say then.  no it just wouldn't work

 

You are thinking of the current fixed composition, amount, size and duration squadrons we have now. Now, maybe you don't want to fiddle with all these variables, but imagine you only have enough TBs for 2 squadrons, and can only have 3 squadrons total in the air at any point. Will you risk sending them up and potentially losing them against an enemy with 3 fighter squadrons? Maybe it's worth it for an early surprise attack, maybe it's not. That's a bit more of strategy gameplay for CVs.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

 

The point of owning the skies is that you can do what you want AFTER you have done that first. And where is the fun in getting the s**t bombed out of you as a non CV ship? None that's what.

 

The thing is that WG needs to decide on the roles of CV's and balance around that. If their role is a damage dealer first and foremost then CV's need to be balanced around damage. If their role is a guardian/scout than CV's need to be balanced around how well they can do this (aka killing planes and keeping DD spotted). So if you are in for direct contribution go strike. If you are in for indirect contribution (aka your team needs to make use of you safeguarding them) then use AS.

 

The problem with the later is (apart from possibly ruining a strike CV game), that it is currently not rewarded properly. And that in a game which is supposed to be a team game.

 

So I just wanted to add to the topic that instead of removing the AS decks they could alternatively strengthen them in order to make sense (currently they don't).

 

 

you mean USN ones don't.  they also need to work out a national  flavour of CVs.  the role of CVs in general is to protect the fleet from the enemy CV and deal damage to surface ships, in particular BBs

[Spellfire40]

yeah, the barrage is stupidly over powered and helps CVs with more squads like IJN ones

 

 

I suggested 2/1/3.  as its "as" loadout because that shouldn't be what IJN are good for.  should be best at strike focused with SOME fighters ,whereas US are half and half strike and fighters thus US can retain some air control while IJN have better potential damage

 Well 1 TB would mean 0 Torps will hit the water vs any decent AA Target leaving you with some TBs that are totally useless even if all bombs hit vs US.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

 Well 1 TB would mean 0 Torps will hit the water vs any decent AA Target leaving you with some TBs that are totally useless even if all bombs hit vs US.

 

that would replace the 3/1/2 "Air Superiority" loadout, cos I don't think a tier 6 IJN CV should get three fighter squads.  so it already has one TB only.  I wasn't suggesting 2-2-2, so that leaves 2/1/3, unless you think 2/1/2 is a good idea

[Spellfire40]

 

that would replace the 3/1/2 "Air Superiority" loadout, cos I don't think a tier 6 IJN CV should get three fighter squads.  so it already has one TB only.  I wasn't suggesting 2-2-2, so that leaves 2/1/3, unless you think 2/1/2 is a good idea

 

 Well i never understood why teh side with the worse fighter squads had the 3 or 4 squad loadouts anyway. basical a total reserval from CBT and early release. IJN was strike US was anti air then they mixed that up. Hiryu/shokaku 2/2/2 Saipan/old base Lexi were the closest CVs that came to balanced  loadouts. Of course high tir aa changes messes up even that.

[Date_A_Bullet]

Lel and i cant even remember the last time, i was sunk by a CV with any of my BBs or CAs.

Since the air-dropped torpedo speed nerf, i almost never die from CVs.

I wont say anything to the fighter layouts, i stopped playing CVs some patches ago, so my knowledge as CV-Player is not up-to-date.

 

All i know is that it is so easy to counter CVs with combined AA and/or fighter cover as BB (and it always was), but since the last patch most BBs can even YOLO around without being punished. I can do it even in my Tirpitz, only T9+ CVs are dangerous.

 

"Balanced"

[lankylad11_lankylad]

 

 Well i never understood why teh side with the worse fighter squads had the 3 or 4 squad loadouts anyway. basical a total reserval from CBT and early release. IJN was strike US was anti air then they mixed that up. Hiryu/shokaku 2/2/2 Saipan/old base Lexi were the closest CVs that came to balanced  loadouts. Of course high tir aa changes messes up even that.

 

  nope me neither.  US should be air dominant but less hitting power than an IJN CV.  they need to reverse AA changes of the last patch and or give planes an increase in health because no way a montana should decimate midway strike planes even after they have dropped never mind before as they do now. Indi  was ok for balanced loadout but the 3/1/2 Ryujo screwed with that, and 3/2/2 4/2/2 taiho/hak did as well cos no one goes 3/0/2 on Midway.  Essex always went strike  and Midway mostly did though stock is now viable if Hak is limited to two squads of fighters

[lankylad11_lankylad]

Lel and i cant even remember the last time, i was sunk by a CV with any of my BBs or CAs.

Since the air-dropped torpedo speed nerf, i almost never die from CVs.

I wont say anything to the fighter layouts, i stopped playing CVs some patches ago, so my knowledge as CV-Player is not up-to-date.

 

All i know is that it is so easy to counter CVs with combined AA and/or fighter cover as BB (and it always was), but since the last patch most BBs can even YOLO around without being punished. I can do it even in my Tirpitz, only T9+ CVs are dangerous.

 

"Balanced"

 

exactly.  a Tirpitz should not  be able to shoot anything shokaku has to offer down, but it does now.  my shokaku stays in port until these aa changes are reversed.  midway stays in port until the loadouts are balanced.  when they are I might get a mid tier US CV as well

[159Hunter]

Removing AS loadouts will not balance out CVs. The AS loadouts can be anoying, but they are in no way the unbalance for a CV ( with maybe the one exception of the AS Hak that is more balanced than AS ).

 

If someone can explain me why those loadouts are removing balance from CV game: plz do, cause I don't see it.

- Yes they will annoy a strike CV, but only from time to time,

- They hardly do any damage, so the CV player will need to play more to gain xp,

- They are the only usefull setup in the heavy AA based Team matches ( cause you can't approach those ships anyays )

 

So explain to me what the unbalance is and how CVs will be balanced after AS loadouts are removed.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

Removing AS loadouts will not balance out CVs. The AS loadouts can be anoying, but they are in no way the unbalance for a CV ( with maybe the one exception of the AS Hak that is more balanced than AS ).

 

If someone can explain me why those loadouts are removing balance from CV game: plz do, cause I don't see it.

- Yes they will annoy a strike CV, but only from time to time,

- They hardly do any damage, so the CV player will need to play more to gain xp,

- They are the only usefull setup in the heavy AA based Team matches ( cause you can't approach those ships anyays )

 

So explain to me what the unbalance is and how CVs will be balanced after AS loadouts are removed.

 

what we are arguing for is for one nation to have air superiority and a DIFFERENT nation to have the better striking power.  at the moment IJN win at both, partly because of the way both air superiority loadouts are.  the US have to give up all hitting power to go AS, yet still because of barrage the IJN get air superiority while retaining both torpedo and dive bombers.  US going strike would probably make them too powerful, so that means cutting some fighters from IJN AS Decks, and a return of 2/1/1 3/1/1 for USN

[lankylad11_lankylad]

they also need to balance CVs before Akagi, Yorktown and Graf Zeppelin appear and then the RN CV's finally appear.

[Ictogan]

Air Superiority loadout is not week at all. Maybe it gets picked by players having problems with their (stock?) CVs, I don't know, but they are most definitely not weak - if anything a tad OP, as they can create zones of permanent team dominance, the likes of which no AA cruiser or stealth DD can hope to match. Ruling the sky has an immense synergy with your most powerful team-mates. You make them invulnerable to their greatest threats. You also have unmatched data-gathering capacity, and instantly feed it to all of your team. Sure, it's teamplay, not solo-carry, but that should be desirable in a team game.

 

Likewise, it's not really about taking away the overall damage potential of the enemy, since squadrons are limited and he has choices. If the AS squadrons are supporting a push at A and scouting B, the other CV can rain submarine metal tubes in C and the AS can't stop it. It is, however, a more strategic game, where the choices about whom you support and when become more important than manual drop skillcheck #4573.

 

Most ships specialize, too. BBs are good against some targets, DDs against others. You don't bring a BB into a match and expect it to be just as good at fighting nimble DDs as at wrecking heavy CAs. And if you brought an anti-DD ship and the enemy has no DDs but many anti you... well, that was unlucky. But not less so than bringing a strike loadout and finding an AS on the other side.

 

I don't mean to pick on you for not having played higher tier CVs, but I don't think someone who has only played tier 5 CVs can properly judge the strength of fighter decks. Fighter decks are quite a lot weaker at higher tiers where CVs actually have reserve planes.

 

 

1) remove the barrage ability

2) replace one fighter with a DB in every IJN AS set up

3) give indi four squads and 2/1/1 same Ranger, Lex.  Essex/Midway 3/1/1

 

 

that would replace the 3/1/2 "Air Superiority" loadout, cos I don't think a tier 6 IJN CV should get three fighter squads.  so it already has one TB only.  I wasn't suggesting 2-2-2, so that leaves 2/1/3, unless you think 2/1/2 is a good idea

 

So what you are suggesting is that:

Indy 2-0-1 and Ranger and Lex 2-0-2 gets replaced by 2-1-1

Essex and Midway 3-0-2 gets replaced by 3-1-1

 

Ryujo 3-1-1 and Hiryu and Shok 3-1-2 get replaced by 2-1-3

 

My opinion on those changes, tier by tier:

t5: I think this tier is worth mentioning because it is a tier where CVs have rather bad stats but are still brokenly OP when there is no 2-0-1 Bogue around. In my opinion, 2-0-1 Bogue should get replaced by 1-1-1 and AA at that tier increased, because right now ships at that tier have almost no AA whatsoever(with the exception of Texas). The only thing that keeps CVs from being completely OP at tier 5 is the existence of 2-0-1 Bogue, but in matches where there isn't one of those CVs are just completely OP.

t6: 2-1-1 Indy seems like it would consistently be able to beat both 1-2-2 and 2-1-3 Ryujo. I would prefer Ryujo also getting 2-2-1 if Indy got 2-1-1.

t7&8: I agree with that, although Hiryu and Shokaku 2-1-3 would be completely useless and noone would pick it(which is not a large change from the current 3-1-2 which I've rarely seen outside of team battles)

t9&10: Not sure whether 3-1-1 would be balanced. I'm probably rather biased regarding this one, but I would consider it too strong against 2-3-2 Taiho. It could shoot down enough of my planes for AA to take care of the rest and also have rather good strike potential.

 

Removing AS loadouts will not balance out CVs. The AS loadouts can be anoying, but they are in no way the unbalance for a CV ( with maybe the one exception of the AS Hak that is more balanced than AS ).

 

If someone can explain me why those loadouts are removing balance from CV game: plz do, cause I don't see it.

- Yes they will annoy a strike CV, but only from time to time,

- They hardly do any damage, so the CV player will need to play more to gain xp,

- They are the only usefull setup in the heavy AA based Team matches ( cause you can't approach those ships anyays )

 

So explain to me what the unbalance is and how CVs will be balanced after AS loadouts are removed.

You missed one part of my post: and balance CVs based on the stats produced after the change.

In any game including an AS CV, the damage potential on both sides is reduced. The game being balanced around the stats that are being created by this means that in games where there is no AS CV, CVs can be somewhat OP, more so at mid-tiers than high tiers. Removing AS setups will not directly balance CVs, but it will make it easier to balance CVs based on stats.

[Capra76]

I'm curious as to what balance is in the context of a CV.

 

How do you balance a ship that is fundamentally playing a completely separate game, cannot normally be directly harmed by other players, who's results depend entirely upon MM and who's implementation in game is so f***ed up it requires its own special mirrored MM?

 

What does a balanced CV look like?  What is it balanced against?

[Ictogan]

I'm curious as to what balance is in the context of a CV.

 

How do you balance a ship that is fundamentally playing a completely separate game, cannot normally be directly harmed by other players, who's results depend entirely upon MM and who's implementation in game is so f***ed up it requires its own special mirrored MM?

 

What does a balanced CV look like?  What is it balanced against?

 

Well I would want to remove the need to balance CVs so they can work against both AS and non-AS setups and are neither OP nor UP in either scenario, because that is impossible.

[lankylad11_lankylad]

I'm curious as to what balance is in the context of a CV.

 

How do you balance a ship that is fundamentally playing a completely separate game, cannot normally be directly harmed by other players, who's results depend entirely upon MM and who's implementation in game is so f***ed up it requires its own special mirrored MM?

 

What does a balanced CV look like?  What is it balanced against?

 

balanced means that at a particular tier the ships each have strengths and weaknesses against each other, with each cv having several loadouts to pick from.  mirrored MM because fighter battles are determined by tier, so if you dont do that i could be in my midway against say a shokaku and obliterate his entire stock of planes leaving him nothing to do.  currently CVs are not balanced against each other

[lankylad11_lankylad]

"

You missed one part of my post: and balance CVs based on the stats produced after the change.

In any game including an AS CV, the damage potential on both sides is reduced. The game being balanced around the stats that are being created by this means that in games where there is no AS CV, CVs can be somewhat OP, more so at mid-tiers than high tiers. Removing AS setups will not directly balance CVs, but it will make it easier to balance CVs based on stats.

"

 

If you give US CVs aerial control with a bit of hitting power (1/1) (1/2) IJN CV dmg would come down and we would have balance

[robihr]

Ictogan, on 06 June 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

The reason why I think AS should be removed is that

a) they are very weak. Even if played perfectly, all they can do is take away the damage potential of ONE enemy ship, while giving up their own damage potential in the first place. Quite a few times after I played against fighter deck CVs I checked their stats. Not once did I see someone who uses mainly fighter decks and has a win rate of over 50% in the CVs he uses them in.

b) I think the concept of a ship who specializes in being able to counter one specific ship in the enemy team and no one else is flawed.

 

There is no point in winning the sky war if you don't have an impact on the surface war, because the surface war is what decides the outcome of the battle.

Air Superiority loadout is not week at all. Maybe it gets picked by players having problems with their (stock?) CVs, I don't know, but they are most definitely not weak - if anything a tad OP, as they can create zones of permanent team dominance, the likes of which no AA cruiser or stealth DD can hope to match. Ruling the sky has an immense synergy with your most powerful team-mates. You make them invulnerable to their greatest threats. You also have unmatched data-gathering capacity, and instantly feed it to all of your team. Sure, it's teamplay, not solo-carry, but that should be desirable in a team game.

 

Likewise, it's not really about taking away the overall damage potential of the enemy, since squadrons are limited and he has choices. If the AS squadrons are supporting a push at A and scouting B, the other CV can rain submarine metal tubes in C and the AS can't stop it. It is, however, a more strategic game, where the choices about whom you support and when become more important than manual drop skillcheck #4573.

 

Most ships specialize, too. BBs are good against some targets, DDs against others. You don't bring a BB into a match and expect it to be just as good at fighting nimble DDs as at wrecking heavy CAs. And if you brought an anti-DD ship and the enemy has no DDs but many anti you... well, that was unlucky. But not less so than bringing a strike loadout and finding an AS on the other side.

 

AS is weak. unless it is haku with 4 fighters. i usually get more planes killed by AA then by AS CV. AS CV is more of a pest rather than a real threat for strike CV.

 

played all setups before 5.1 on ijn and strike was most effective. played strike on ranger now and it is most effective. why is AS weak? cause no matter how good player is he cant block 100% of the planes of enemy CV. he will need to reload, he will have to constant micro fighters so my bombers dont lure him over AA heavy ships, he will have to have a brain so i dont lure his fighters to the edge of the map so my other squadrons can damage enemy. only usability of AS setup is if the team has AA heavy ships that create pockets of no fly zones, and AS CV fills the gaps where strike squads could pass.

 

but do you know what is real threat for me(and my strike setup)? balanced setups. setups that can snipe my CV while being escorted by fighters, or while his fighters defend his CV from being sniped by me...

[Aotearas]

​You are wrong an some asumtions. You can conter the enmy CV 100% and that still wont win you the game if your Team is crap. On the other Hand If a Strike only get one  atack thogh it has influenced the battle in a way your hard pressed to get better in a AA loadout. On the other Hand if the Stike sipes the AA sucessfully he can have a Major Impact on the rest of the game were the reserve isnt true. (yes i did killed a strike ranger in a AA Ranger once in 2 atack waves ist posible if the enemy Team has 0 ships near the enemy CV.)

 

I agree thogh that balaced Setups would be the best solution thogh how to inplement that and Keep nattional difference is a bit of a worry.

 

I'd think around the following (rough example):

 

-US squadrons maintain six aircraft and IJN maintain four aircraft per squadron. US typically gets higher reserve/hanger capacity, whereas IJN airplanes fly faster.

-Barrage ability damage output gets reduced. No more potential to wipe out squadrons from the sky in an instant. Provides increased alpha damage and a well executed strafe can kill two aircraft, making it useful prior to fighter duels or if you need to kill some bombers really quick (though chances are you can't make a perfect Barrage in such a situation, so a single quick aircraft kill is more likely for an imperfect barrage).

-All fighers gain the ability to strafe ships and rattle the ships AA gunners. Using this will expend all remaining ammunition on the fighter squadron, but the ships' AA fire against other aircraft will be reduced for as long as the strafe is going on (if fighter(s) are shot down, disengage or ran out of ammunition, the debuff no longer applies). Doing so will allow planes to power through stronger AA defenses* with fewer losses (drop accuracy debuff still aplies if Defensive AA Fire was triggered by enemy ships), but is also likely to cost you the strafing fighter squadron(s). This is an idea specifically to make balanced loadouts distinctively useful in strike roles compared to the strike loadout's superiour maximum damage potential.

-Fighters can disengage from other fighter squadrons. Typically more useful for the lower strength IJN fighters to temporarily lock down an intercepting/escorting US fighter squadron and attempt to retreat (IJN aircraft are faster, but will take fire for a small time during the retreat and not cause any damage in return). In a straight up duel US fighters are still superiour. Can also be used to disrupt a fighter strafe on one of your ships without having to fight it out to the end, or have the enemy fighter squadron attempt a retreat upon realization that his plan was foiled.

-US Divebombers get smaller bomb dispersion and a more even drop pattern within the dispersion ellipse (easier to hit smaller ships and more reliable and consitent hits).

 

For low tier CV :

US gets 1/1/2

IJN gets 1/2/1

 

For mid tier CVs:

US gets 2/1/2 with option to go 1/1/3

IJN gets 2/2/2 with option to go 1/3/2

 

For high tier CVs:

US gets 2/2/3 with option to go 1/2/4

IJN gets 2/3/3 with option to go 1/4/3

 

 

National traits would be:

-US CVs are better at striking smaller, more manouverable ships (DDs and CL/CAs) and their increased aircraft count per squadron means they can bruteforce their attacks through opposing AA better without losing too much damage potential. The increased reserve/hangar capacity also means they can take more losses doing so without instantly flying with low-strenght squadrons.

-IJN Cvs have higher maximum damage output and are thus more capable at striking large ships (BBs and less manouverable CAs) and their typically higher strike squadron count also allows the player to increase strike accuracy with crossdrops or partition his damage potential amongst more targets simultanously if he so choses, but with less aircraft per squadron means they can't bruteforce a strike through concentrated AA as good as the US might and lower reserve/hangar capacity also means they can't sustain too many losses attempting such.

 

 

Feel free to discuss and/or shoot down any ideas of mine.

 

 

* No, this is not meant to render ship based AA ineffective. A cruiser with strong AA (or weak AA buffed by using Defensive AA Fire) will still kill aircraft and if focused, the strafing fighters will get destroyed quickly, only giving a brief window of opportunity for air strikes. To put it into perspective, you're not supposed to be able to use this on a Des Moines with AA setup and just circle your aircraft over it with impunity. Exactly values would be a thing of long and careful testing/balancing.

[robihr]

 

I'd think around the following (rough example):

 

-US squadrons maintain six aircraft and IJN maintain four aircraft per squadron. US typically gets higher reserve/hanger capacity, whereas IJN airplanes fly faster.

-Barrage ability damage output gets reduced. No more potential to wipe out squadrons from the sky in an instant. Provides increased alpha damage and a well executed strafe can kill two aircraft, making it useful prior to fighter duels or if you need to kill some bombers really quick (though chances are you can't make a perfect Barrage in such a situation, so a single quick aircraft kill is more likely for an imperfect barrage).

-All fighers gain the ability to strafe ships and rattle the ships AA gunners. Using this will expend all remaining ammunition on the fighter squadron, but the ships' AA fire against other aircraft will be reduced for as long as the strafe is going on (if fighter(s) are shot down, disengage or ran out of ammunition, the debuff no longer applies). Doing so will allow planes to power through stronger AA defenses* with fewer losses (drop accuracy debuff still aplies if Defensive AA Fire was triggered by enemy ships), but is also likely to cost you the strafing fighter squadron(s). This is an idea specifically to make balanced loadouts distinctively useful in strike roles compared to the strike loadout's superiour maximum damage potential.

-Fighters can disengage from other fighter squadrons. Typically more useful for the lower strength IJN fighters to temporarily lock down an intercepting/escorting US fighter squadron and attempt to retreat (IJN aircraft are faster, but will take fire for a small time during the retreat and not cause any damage in return). In a straight up duel US fighters are still superiour. Can also be used to disrupt a fighter strafe on one of your ships without having to fight it out to the end, or have the enemy fighter squadron attempt a retreat upon realization that his plan was foiled.

-US Divebombers get smaller bomb dispersion and a more even drop pattern within the dispersion ellipse (easier to hit smaller ships and more reliable and consitent hits).

 

For low tier CV :

US gets 1/1/2

IJN gets 1/2/1

 

For mid tier CVs:

US gets 2/1/2 with option to go 1/1/3

IJN gets 2/2/2 with option to go 1/3/2

 

For high tier CVs:

US gets 2/2/3 with option to go 1/2/4

IJN gets 2/3/3 with option to go 1/4/3

 

 

National traits would be:

-US CVs are better at striking smaller, more manouverable ships (DDs and CL/CAs) and their increased aircraft count per squadron means they can bruteforce their attacks through opposing AA better without losing too much damage potential. The increased reserve/hangar capacity also means they can take more losses doing so without instantly flying with low-strenght squadrons.

-IJN Cvs have higher maximum damage output and are thus more capable at striking large ships (BBs and less manouverable CAs) and their typically higher strike squadron count also allows the player to increase strike accuracy with crossdrops or partition his damage potential amongst more targets simultanously if he so choses, but with less aircraft per squadron means they can't bruteforce a strike through concentrated AA as good as the US might and lower reserve/hangar capacity also means they can't sustain too many losses attempting such.

 

 

Feel free to discuss and/or shoot down any ideas of mine.

 

 

* No, this is not meant to render ship based AA ineffective. A cruiser with strong AA (or weak AA buffed by using Defensive AA Fire) will still kill aircraft and if focused, the strafing fighters will get destroyed quickly, only giving a brief window of opportunity for air strikes. To put it into perspective, you're not supposed to be able to use this on a Des Moines with AA setup and just circle your aircraft over it with impunity. Exactly values would be a thing of long and careful testing/balancing.

 

this would need such rework of AA that i dont see it happening anytime soon. CA would lose their AA escort role if you have CV that would be capable of countering them...

[159Hunter]

You missed one part of my post: and balance CVs based on the stats produced after the change.

In any game including an AS CV, the damage potential on both sides is reduced. The game being balanced around the stats that are being created by this means that in games where there is no AS CV, CVs can be somewhat OP, more so at mid-tiers than high tiers. Removing AS setups will not directly balance CVs, but it will make it easier to balance CVs based on stats.

 

I still fail to see what's wrong with an AS CV. It's annoying: yes, it will reduce your damage potential: yes, but it does add an extra layer to CV gameplay. If you remove the AS setup, you might as well remove the balanced setups cause they'll be useless, and then we're all in strike? What fun is that, all in max damage mode? These loadouts will at least give CV players a choice on how they want to play.

[Myrmix]

 

 

With this setups, US CV would be hilariously overpowered.

Due to the larger squadsize and healthpool, US bombers are barely influenced by denfensive AA-fire. You can still land 1-2 bombs with the divebombers and you barely recognize any changes from the already tight torpspread.

Giving US cv these numbers of squadrons at high-tier couldn't even make a IJN cv fighter-setup useful.

The only advantage IJN has, is the speed. Survivability, dps and especially ammo (1 ijn fightersquad can take down ~50% planes of your whole setup without strafe, while ijn has to reload after every squad) are much stronger on US cvs and the only way to counter them is strafe (too bad they nerfed it).

I like your idea of fighters beeing able to retreat. nothing is more frustrating when you get that us-squad down to 1 plane without loss and he still kills your whole 4 fighters because they ran out of ammo.

[Ictogan]

 

I still fail to see what's wrong with an AS CV. It's annoying: yes, it will reduce your damage potential: yes, but it does add an extra layer to CV gameplay. If you remove the AS setup, you might as well remove the balanced setups cause they'll be useless, and then we're all in strike? What fun is that, all in max damage mode? These loadouts will at least give CV players a choice on how they want to play.

 

Yeah, but the main problem that I want to address here is that because of AS setups, CVs have to be balanced to be able to be able to do some damage even when playing against an AS CV and the enemy has a bit of AA. Without them, CV vs other ship classes could more easily be balanced imo.